0
$\begingroup$

I have a finite measure space $(X, \mathcal{S}, \mu)$, and a transformation $f:X\rightarrow X$ that "preserves measure on average". That is, for $A \in \mathcal{S}$ $$ \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^n \mu(f^k(A)) = \mu(A) $$ I would like to be able to apply some ergodic or recurrence theorem in this situation, but Poincare Recurrence for example requires that the map $f$ be measure-preserving, which this "measure-preserving on average" mapping does not satisfy.

I am wondering if anyone can say if there are any results concerning such "measure-preserving on average" maps and any related recurrence or ergodic theorems, or if there is some way I can use say an altered Poincare Recurrence to makes claims about this mapping.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Your condition is a bit problematic because $f(A)$ may not be a measurable set. It's generally better to write invariance conditions in terms of $f^{-1}$. If a measure satisfies your condition with $f^{-1}$ in place of $f$, it actually is invariant: you can just substitute $f^{-1}(A)$ for $A$ and you see you have the same limit, so your condition implies $\mu(A)=\mu(f^{-1}A)$. $\endgroup$ – Anthony Quas Dec 7 '20 at 2:36
0
$\begingroup$

The phrase "a finite measure space $(X,\mathcal{S},\mu)$ where $\mu$ is the Lebesgue measure" can only reasonably mean that $\mu$ is a nonzero multiple of the counting measure, with $\mathcal{S}$ being the powerset of $X$. At least, we may assume that, if $A\subsetneq X$, then $\mu(A)<\mu(X)$. Therefore and because the set $X$ is finite, $$M:=\max\{\mu(A)\colon A\subsetneq X\}<\mu(X).$$ So, if $f(X)\ne X$, then your displayed condition implies $$\mu(X)\le\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac1n\,\sum_{k=1}^n M=M<\mu(X).$$ This contradiction implies that $f(X)=X$. Since the set $X$ is finite, this means that $f$ is a bijection or, in other words, permutation of the set $X$.

On the other hand, if every permutation of $X$ "preserves a measure $\mu$ on average", then it is easy to see that $\mu$ must be a multiple of the counting measure.

In particular, it follows that, if $\mu$ is a nonzero multiple of the counting measure on $X$, then a map $f\colon X\to X$ "preserves the measure $\mu$ on average" iff $f$ is a permutation of the set $X$.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It may be that "measure space with finite measure" is what was intended. Maybe OP can clarify… $\endgroup$ – Dirk Dec 6 '20 at 19:56
  • $\begingroup$ Yes I meant just measure space of finite measure, I am not sure why I added the Lebesgue measure part. $\endgroup$ – GEG Dec 6 '20 at 19:57
  • $\begingroup$ I edited the question appropriately, and if this changes much in your answer I would very much appreciate an explanation of what changes. $\endgroup$ – GEG Dec 6 '20 at 19:59
  • $\begingroup$ @GEG : I think "a finite measure space" can only mean a measure space which is finite, and that is something quite different from "a measure space with a finite measure" or "a finite-measure measure space". Of course, the answer entirely relies on the condition that the space is finite. $\endgroup$ – Iosif Pinelis Dec 6 '20 at 21:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.